2021 (12) TMI 396 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained Cash deposits - HELD THAT - As reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer while reopening the case have been grossly erroneous as at the first instance there were no such cash deposits in the bank account. Further, an amount has been deposited through cheques which pertain to regular course of business of the assessee. Hence, in view of the erroneous reasons recorded on account of unexplained cash deposits by the Assessing Officer, the addition made on this account cannot be upheld. Unexplained investments u/s 69 - Since, the amount stands assessed in the hands of the assessee for the A.Y. 2006-07, the property involved is the same and there was no evidence of payment of ₹ 10,00,000/- by the assessee, we hold that no further addition is required to be made in the instant assessment year. In view of these facts, the order of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer under section 148
2. Addition of unexplained investment under section 69
3. Addition of unexplained cash deposit under section 68

Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer under section 148:
The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 31.07.2018. The Assessing Officer had assumed jurisdiction under section 148 without proper appreciation of facts, recording of satisfaction, and requisite approval under section 151 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening the case mentioned unexplained cash deposits and investments by the assessee. However, upon examination, it was found that the alleged cash deposits of ?55,03,285 were not present in the bank account as claimed by the Revenue. Additionally, a significant amount was deposited through cheques related to the regular course of business. Consequently, the erroneous reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits led to the dismissal of the addition made on this account.

Addition of unexplained investment under section 69:
The second issue involved an amount of ?56,00,000 received by the assessee as per an agreement with another party for a property. This transaction was treated as unexplained investment for the assessment year 2006-07. However, it was noted that the said amount had already been assessed in the previous year, and no fresh payment was made in the current year. The Assessment Order highlighted various details and proceedings related to the income derived by the assessee. The Assessment Order dated 19.03.2014 considered the property as unexplained investment under section 69 for ?56,00,000. Since the amount was already assessed in a prior year and there was no evidence of additional payment, it was concluded that no further addition was necessary for the current assessment year. Consequently, the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition could not be upheld, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Addition of unexplained cash deposit under section 68:
The third issue revolved around an addition of ?55,03,285 as an unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case based on reports of unaccounted cash deposits and large investments made by the assessee. However, upon scrutiny, it was found that there was no factual basis for the alleged cash deposit, and the Assessing Officer had considered the amount arbitrarily without reference to bank accounts or other material. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made on this account was highly arbitrary and unjustified, leading to the allowance of the appeal by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the jurisdictional aspects of the Assessing Officer under section 148, the treatment of unexplained investments under section 69, and the addition of unexplained cash deposits under section 68, ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee on all grounds.

← Previous Next →